"Sensible gun laws work. We've proven it in California. And we're not going to give up."

Surreal. Boxer's defenders would say that gun violence in California has fallen substantially since the state implemented a series of restrictions decades ago (none of which stopped the apparent jihadist massacre this week). But gun crime is down sharply across the board in the United States, including in states and jurisdictions with very permissive gun laws. Indeed, despite terrible incidents and prominent headlines, gun homicides have been cut in half over the last 20 years. And gun crime has is down overall since the 2004 expiration of the federal ban on "assault weapons," a state-level version which failed to prevent this week's calculated horror. In any case, yesterday's tone-deaf gem will be added to the pantheon of awful that is the career of Senator Ma'am. I'll leave you with my debate over gun control on Fox News yesterday afternoon (courtesy of Right Sightings):

Serious question for gun control advocates: If radical Islamist terrorists aren't deterred by laws against murder and bomb-making, in what way would tighter gun laws stand in their way? The primary San Bernadino shooter was a US citizen and government employee with a clean record. The guns used were purchased legally. Law abiding people follow the law. It's a tautology, but it's true. How does disarming those people help matters? Reports indicate that police didn't arrive on the scene after until the bloodbath was over. If you're advocating an unconstitutional, impractical confiscation regime, please say so.